Of course, by that same logic, were Maher to expire while eating a small mound of coke off the navel of some seventeen-year-old wannabe pop star, more people would probably watch HBO. And that’s just A FACT!
Related: Howard Dean immediately calls on Republicans to condemn Ann Coulter for getting Maher so darn angry that he had no choice but to lash out at the HATERS—and “conservative libertarian” Glenn Greenwald(s), never one to overreact to a bit of hardball political rhetoric, is noting that Maher is “practically anonymous,” a nobody unrepresentative of everyone and everything ever, and that the neocons who dug his remarks out of obscurity and are now feigning outrage over them would be better served by condemning the grand ‘Emperor Misha’, who, unlike Maher, actually has an audience.
Which, on that last bit, at least, he might just have himself a point…
(h/t CJ Burch)
I kid Bill.
Hell, I don’t even know who he is.
And HBO? What the hell is that?
Wait, isn’t Maher on record for doing the first big AIDS joke? Someone look that up, I’m positive it was him, before botox and PETA turned him queer.
Misha musta been in a mellow mood.
You should see his stuff when he’s mad.
Glenn(s), you ignorant slut, you ought to get out more often.
Gleen is priceless. He’s the gift that keeps on giving. I’m sure he’ll pipe up soon enough. And just as soon Patterico will destroy him again.
Would it be a violation of the First Amendment to demand that political commentators have some fundamental understanding of the language before they are allowed a media voice? Like the difference between a fact and an opinion?
I’d suggest the common denominator for everyone (with the possible exception of Dick Cheney) mentioned in this point is their hatefulness. Mahar can say someone else started it, Coulter defenders can say she’s just mirroring the left, and Misha…well, Misha’s just…I guess I shouldn’t say what Misha is, lest I be accused of being hateful.
This is interesting.
The post that Glenn(s) links to is from July 11, 2006.
Why that old?
I’m sure that Misha has posted far better rants that would REALLY offend Glenn(s).
I’d be interested to hear Maher’s actual train of reasoning that would lead from “Dick Cheney being assassinated by a Taliban suicide bomber” to “Fewer people dying in wars immediately.” It’s not just an obnoxious sentiment, there
Would the U.S. immediately pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq, chastened by this terrible loss?
Would Islamists world wide say “Hey, that was a great victory. Let’s quit while we’re ahead!”
Would the new Vice President, (appointed by Bush) have the power and inclination to end the war? ‘Cause there’s no way that it would make the American public more angry and belligerant towards Islamists, right? It would only increase our anger towards the Bush administration. Look at what a hero Lee Harvey Oswald became to all of JFK’s critics, after all.
Moron.
Well, a certain segment of the population would ally itself more closely with the Islamists. The rest would be steaming mad.
Ann Coulter is out of her mind. Jon Edwards doesn’t look like a bunch of sticks. He looks like a queer.
Two Americas: top and bottom.
Oh, and Coulter’s a douche. But we all already knew that, didn’t we?
Bush and Cheney are faggots.
Heh. Line most likely to get “The Hobbit” pulled from a school library?
Oh, look. Mr Daddy Issues is back.
Bush and Cheney are faggots.
Posted by steve ex-expat | permalink
OMG, Steve ex-expat has opened another battlefront in the lefty/righty blogo/meato – sphere HATE-HATE war of 2007! OH THE HUMANITY.
Stevex, you said the “f” word. Now we’ll all have to condemn and repudiate you. You might have to go to rehab due to your anger issues. Please issue the standard non-apology apology and add some lefty cant like how you never say anything like that, but all of the war and violence in the world these days, like Bush’s crazy, immoral war, has led you down the dark path of homophobia, even though some of your best freinds, nay lovers were and are heinie-stabbing butt pirates.
I condemn Steve ex-expat for saying that Bush and Cheney are faggots. Even though Bush and Cheney are faggots.
Stevie Ex – Refuse to apologize until Dan apologizes for the 1863 NYC draft riots – what the heck let’s make Pablo beg forgiveness for Wounded Knee.
I condemn Steve ex-expat who, in his comdemnation of Steve ex-expat for referring to Bush and Cheney as faggots, repeated the slur that Bush and Cheney are faggots. Nevertheless, Bush and Cheney are bigtime faggots – 100%, dyed-in-the-wool faggots.
stevexx:
You’re supposed to say, ‘I’m checking into rehab’.
Robert Crawford, LOL…I was thinking the exact same thing. Some of these idiots would call for The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings to be banned, or better yet burned, due to the inflammatory and hateful language. In those books, the protagonists actually BURN the FAGGOTS, too! OMG! Tolkien was full of hate!!!!
I bet that wool is dyed in pastel colors and trimmed with satin, am I right?
BAM!
This was Maher’s remark: “I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live.”
You’re right—that’s not “a fact,” as Maher contends. But neither is it “an opinion,” as do you.
It is conjecture.
A fact would be, “Dick Cheney is vice president of the United States.” An opinion would be, “I hate Dick Cheney.”
Would it be a violation of etiquette to demand that blog commenters have some fundamental understanding of the language before somebody, yet again, describes a speculative remark as “an opinion”?
For the record, B Moe, I think Maher is a goober, and I generally like your posts here. Consider this friendly fire.
First, my “get out of jail free” card: Ann Coulter is a dick. There.
Now:
–Bored of the Rings (1969)
Angie,
You had me at Yalu. Look out! Oh no! It’s…THE BALLHOG!
Maher did not just offer a hypothesis, he expressed an affirmative belief in said “conjecture”, so yes, he did offer an opinion.
Is the newly-defeated right’s first Sister Souljah moment?
How touching.
Who get chucked overboard next?
Permanent Majority, here we come…again!
I don’t know why, but the “cruel runes” always cracks me up. I had a friend who went to Villanova; he loved that bit.
In my opinion, a conjecture is a type of opinion, but that is just my opinion.
I conjecture that alpo is a jerkoff.
Does that work?
Angie,
Yeah, I loved the book; still makes me chuckle twenty-plus years later. Pretty amazing in that the guys who wrote it went on to do classics like Animal House, Caddyshack, etc. P.J. O’Rourke was part of that crew, too. They named another book in BOTR, “Valley of the Trolls.” Speaking of which…
This is the statement that Maher described as a fact (and that B Moe thus described as an opinion): “I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live.”
Where is the “affirmative belief” in this statement? (What do you mean by “affirmative belief,” anyway? That may help clarify for me.)
Now, Maher did offer an opinion in a statement preceding that one: “But I have zero doubt that if Dick Cheney was not in power, people wouldn’t be dying needlessly tomorrow.” Here, the “needlessly” is an opinion.
But his hypothesis that more people would live if Dick Cheney died is simply that: a hypothesis. Conjecture. It wasn’t a statement of fact, and it wasn’t an opinion.
To be fair, I’m far more annoyed by Maher’s asserting, “That’s a fact,” than I am by B Moe’s calling it an opinion. It’s so smug and sanctimonious, semantics aside.
If Maher is anonymous, then Greenwald doesn’t exist…like he’s just somebody’s sockpuppet, or something.
I’m beginning to think that GiGi is just Frank J. fucking with us.
Angie,
Bored of the Rings is one of my favorite parodies. “Minas Stroney in the Soup” – et cetera. The bit about the elfen maiden opening up her cloak was good, too.
If you haven’t read it yet, Doon is quite good, provided you’ve read ‘Dune’.
What I mean by “affirmative belief” is expressing that you believe a hypothesis to be true as opposed to believing it to be false. While it is possible to offer a hypothesis that Cheney’s death would result in lower casualty rate, the statement given by Maher expresses his belief, or his opinion.
opinion:
opinion:
Maher is correct I think to point a finger at the comment cleansing at Huffington Post – I can’t get bent out of shape at his defense of free speech, and given the media filters in place, Maher’s highlighting of the sentiments of the puerile left calls attention to them that is in contrast to the whitewash the AP has maintained towards, to pick one example, Cindy Sheehan, whose more extreme and daffy statements are never included in their reports.
That said, it’s clear that Bill Maher is more intent upon using the Huffington Post incident to explore the terrain of Dixie Chicking – he is asserting that HuffPo’s suppression of comments is tantamount to a declaration that certain speech IS in fact “out-of-bounds.” Maher has an interest, given his past experience, in developing the idea that society is accumulating a growing roster of “free-speech” victims.
What’s amazing is that he misses the obvious inference of HuffPo’s editorial decision… That someone at HuffPo clearly understood that the assassination of the US Vice President would have severely redounded to the detriment of the left, and that, in the event of an assassination of ANY administration official for the remainder of Bush’s term, a record of supporting such an act would likely be devastating if not fatal to any organization that is looking to cultivate sponsorships and generate a return for investors.
In that sense, HuffPo’s eliding of the assassination comments is a defensive move that will indemnify them in the future. Given Maher’s experience at Politically Incorrect, during which ABC supported him only until sponsors began to withdraw, it’s clear that this entire exchange on HBO is a willfully naive and insincere line of questioning on his part.
How about the “I’m just saying” part?
Is there something about the statement that suggests it’s merely a hypothetical? I don’t see one.
In my opinion, it’s an opinion.
And that’s a fact.
I went to Villanova.
An I’ll just say that most of the ballhogs in the world are named “Temple”. I believe they eat small white pointgaurds named “st Joe”.
First part is fact, second conjecture.
TW: sat78. As in,that’s a little high.
N O’Brain,
Well, that’s a fact. QED and whatnot.
Doon is great. I can never picture Dick Cheney except as Baron Hardchargin:
“Ah-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h—-”
“Dick, if we could just…”
“-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h. Is it not a delightfully fiendish plan which I, Vice President Dick Cheney, who is myself, have devised? If you’re not going to strangle any more kittens right now, George, kindly pass them to me.”
Maybe Dick Cheney is a faggot, but if so he’s at least a running faggot.
God speed through Texas, faggot.
Whatis your definition of a “faggot”? And why is that you believe Ann coulter is a “dick”? Just curious.
Pedant,
You have certainly given yourself the right monicker. If you need to parse Maher so narrowly, you have too much time on your hands.
Anyone who is even slightly aquainted with this apparent child molester knows instinctively that Maher was expressing his own opinion.
People as arrogant as Maher don’t have a “conjecture nodule” in thier brain. Why would you need conjecture when you already know everything?
“a bundle of sticks, twigs, or branches bound together and used as fuel, a fascine, a torch, etc.”
Curiously, Ann may have just intended to call him a fascist, and used the wrong word.
But she’s still a douche, because that’s almost certainly NOT what she meant.
The really funny thing about all this is that Maher and Coulter are supposedly pretty good friends, from what I understand. Coincidence?
TW: I question the timing48.
Let me get this straight, Mandy Mercotte’s screeds & the entire published career of Al Franken are alright because its hind-sightenly called “satire†but Ann Coulter’s satirical use of what one Hollywood actor had to do to be forgiven for his homophobia isn’t? Make no mistake, I am in no way condoning what Ann said, frankly it was juvenile, base & in poor taste all around, but it was a satirical summation of what one has to do in the entertainment industry to show remorse, though poorly done.
It’s ironic that Gleen can forgive those who actually weren’t being satirical & were in fact being intentionally rude or hurtful, & not Ann for being her characteristically unfunny & droll self, all-the-while actually attempting to be satirical & show the hypocrisy of the left & Hollywood in general. Too bad no one will notice that Gleen & like minded critics will be shown for what Ann inadvertently implied, superficially simplistic, all because of the use of one slur based word.
If this latest episode doesn’t characterize Coulter’s career – potentially brilliant on several levels, but mired in superficial mud flinging – then nothing will.
The “progressive” response to Coulter’s words & not those of their fellow bloggers, entertainers & partisans are as equally enlightening & in reality show exactly how far they will go to ignore truly hurtful & hateful words in order to score political points & damage their opponents. Their outrage isn’t against the words used by Coulter, but towards the people speaking them, since hate is the sole providence of the right in their eyes. However in contrast, the right’s response to Amanda’s hiring by John Edwards was to question it in principle only. The left’s response to Coulter is to taint the entire right & bash them politically via a very broad brush.
Readers of Gleen shouldn’t be surprised by this latest posting or the methodology he has resorted to. Like always, simply remove the thin veneer of the faux outrage & emotionalism from any point ventured by him, or the left for that matter, the end result is nothing more than politically juiced conjecture – generally far removed from reality or context. His blogsphere career is built upon ignoring context & blanketing gross generalizations upon his opponents, while providing yet another source of red-meat to feed his echo chambered, reactionary base.
It is sad that Ann feels the need to resort to such base comments, but in reality what is even sadder is the typical, patternized response that the “so-called†intellectual left relies solely upon to gain an immediate one-up-manship upon all of their opponents. Instead of dismissing all hateful tactics, both of the left & right, to insure a real debate takes place, Gleen & his ilk prefer to attempt to eliminate all opposition from having a voice at all.
Okay, Maher’s a faggot too, but an ugly one. Edwards… he is purty.
Taking it one step further, the left which purely defines each individual by what group they belong to, can easily dismiss the comments of Bill Maher, because he is on their side, he is an atheist, he is an entertainer, he is pro-environment, he hates George Bush, etc. The use of this, for lack of a better term, identity or group politics is a means to nullify the points raised by the opposition, if not outright the opposition itself.
This is why the blatantly non-satirical words of Mandy, Franken, Rosie O’Donnell or even Maher don’t count in their eyes or warrant a response, where as Coulter’s do. This explains why Mel Gibson’s DUI arrest garnered by far more & longer lasting media attention than Michael Richard’s racist outbursts while on stage; Gibson isn’t a part of the right group.
I think reliance upon this type of mentality is behind Gleen’s success in blogging. His efforts allow them to perpetuate this methodology w/o having to question reasons or ideas for themselves & on their own merit. Just like his arguments allow his readers to suspend thinking about the other side or from having to actually read the opposition at all – it allows them solely to react in their preferred voice. This is why rational analysis & fact checking generally shred his arguments & show his points to be what they are, emotional conjecture. Reliance upon logic, which delineates group membership, shows Gleen’s retractors as only being superficial, because they fail to take into account his being gay, anti-war, a Democrat supporter, etc.
This is why Mandy, as a so-called feminist, can proclaim that repeating her own words in context & in whole is the product of the “right-wing noise machine†& not simply repeating her words as proof of her guilt. This is why Al Gore can claim to be for the environment, while not actually being environmentally friendly in real life. This is why the most popular ex-President can be heralded as a true defender of women, gay & minorities, while in realty he abused his power & seduced a young woman, was accused of rape by several other women, made the “don’t ask, don’t tell†policy in the military, reformed welfare across the board & didn’t bother w/ promoting a single African American to any substantial cabinet positions or powerful positions within his Party itself.
Gleen simply has to show membership to some clearly defined group & their guilt is automatically assumed: Bush supporter – irrational “cultist,†Republican – Nazi, Corporate CEO – greedy, wants to destroy the environment, etc. Their entire foundation, understanding & means for argumentation are nothing more than group-membership & its pre-determined authenticity. From the ranks of academia, to Hollywood, to political party membership, the sole defining characteristic is group membership & intent, not actions. Notice that the only actions that warrant response are those that don’t follow the guidelines or refuse membership altogether… Michael Steele, Michelle Malkin, Condi Rice receive the most bile & are called traitors to their race no matter their accomplishments or positions obtained. It’s the refusal of the group mentality that is their greatest sin in the eyes of Gleen & his ilk, never their ideas.
Given that mentality I am not surprised that Gleen would defend Mandy, Ariana, Ariana’s commenters or ignore Maher’s words, they belong to the right group & their words, actions or intentions are above question or ridicule. This is why our own little “a†can have his ass handed to him, in every thread & it doesn’t phase his outlook or stifle his righteous indignation. We can never know what we talking about because we do not belong to the right groups or have the right predetermined outlook. His lack of knowledge of the military, the government or of history itself doesn’t count, because he is against the war. His only claim to authenticity (just like steve ex-expat), at least here, is that he is a Republican & is leaning towards Giuliani – completely disregarding the fact that Giuliani is Pro Bush & Pro War, or that it is our acceptance of Bush, the War & Giuliani’s stances that give The Mayor’s position the perceived strength or authenticity we accept; little “a†assumes he automatically gets by claiming membership to it. Never mind the ideas, it’s the membership that creates a legitimate standing in little “a’s†eyes.
Sorry for the extra long comments & possible thread killer
It’s simple. Dick Cheney dies and George Bush’s impeachment security blanket is gone. We don’t even care if he picks Guiliani (a guy who doesn’t know the difference between a Pershing and a cruise missile) as Veep. Bush would be impeached. Whether he’d be convicted in the Senate is a moot point. Without Cheney impeachment will keep him from doing any more damage to the country.
I didn’t think it was possible Arianna, but you even type with an accent.
Pmain: That was interesting; I had to read it twice. I guess there are two things at issue here: the politics of affiliation, and the politics of consumption. I float in the first category; I am an actual consumer of political thought. I look to the open market for ideas. The consumptives are frozen in time and outlook. Too bad for them.
Are you accusing the Right of being…[gasp]… tubercular???!?!?!?!!!!111
Left leaning thinking usually is.
So your saying that the only thing holding back the Dhimmicruds from impeaching Bush now is a possible Cheney presidency?
So McHitler W. Chimpy is SOOOOooo evil and badbadbad for the country… but for the good of (who?) you would leave him in control and won’t impeach until it is POLITICALLY prudent, is that it “markg8”?
You let your facade slip just a little and let the real you shine through.
So illuminating.
No, I am saying that in this case, consumption means stewing yourself completely in easily-warmed conserative broth where you soak until you throw on your robe and do battle.
Burn the faggots is BAD? That’s what my dad said every time he lit a cigarette. Oh, you mean they’re not cigarettes any more? Dang.
Mmmmmm…broth.
Oh, look, someone who still thinks the Democrats are going to do something, anything…
Sucker!
My broth tastes like chicken noodle soup, with a delightful hint of coriander!
Hmm…I love chicken noodle soup,
Slightly OT but not quite, I went to see a standup comic tonight in DC, down at Lisner Auditorium at GWU.
The show was freakin’ hilarious, and, as I suspected, the comic was no fan of the Chimperor. Anyway, he ended the show with a funny bit of “performance art” where he stripped down to a Lil’ Orphan Annie red dress, and lip-synced to “The Sun Will Come Out, Tomorrow” while he tore away poster-board statements he made about America. One of the posters he made said, “I hope Dick Cheney’s faggot daughter has a daughter who is a faggot.” As I said, the whole thing was meant to be absurd, and was damn funny, especially when he ended with the final poster, “Iraq, Iran, North Ikea. What to do? Kill Dane Cook.” I guess you had to be there.
So my question is, as idiotic as I think Ann Coulter is for her attention-grabbing “joke” yesterday, is it okay for a lefty to throw that word around talking about a homosexual, even if said homosexual happens to be the daughter of the Vice-President? And yes, I realize, dear lefties, it’s satire. But it’s okay for them to use it, right, because they really don’t hate anyone do they? From them it’s just a word, and there’s nothing behind it. But from the right or, at least, non-left…well, I guess I’ll paraphrase GG: “That is who they are, and this is what they do.” Yeah, whatever. Time for scotch.
Cynn,
Is it your opinion that the warmed-over broth is unique only to conservatives, or, more generally speaking, any political movement which has it’s fair share of conventional wisdom – i.e. all of them – lend themselves to that kind of behavior?
BRD
In a word, yes.
And don’t you even dare to ask why.
Ah, warmed over chickenhawk broth.
Nothing better to stifle discussion from the right.
But it is better than living in the cold cloaca of exploded Marxism.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Ann Coulter!
DewClaw I think you’ll agree most Democrats think Cheney would be an even worse president than George Bush seeing as he’s been wrong about virtually everything. Get rid of Cheney and his minions and the driving force behind the trumped up charges against Iraq and now Iran is gone. Of course removing Cheney from office legally would be preferable. It’d probably bring down the whole lot of them, Bush included.
OTH if Cheney had been blown up by a Taliban bomb as one commentator said at another wingnut site we’d probably bomb the hell out of those Al Qaeda and Taliban camps in North Waziristan. That would be another satisfactory result of Dick Cheney dying our country in most Democrats’ eyes. Let me ask you folks, would you trade Dick Cheney for the destruction of Al Qaeda and the Taliban?
He was “wrong about virtually everything” because he said the same things Clinton, Gore, Ritter, etc. said?
*sigh*
It’s like they really think we have no memories of our own.
Right, the fucking UN is just doing Cheney’s evil neocon bidding.
Moron.
Markg8,
These comments of yours are so juvenile, I’d think you were a satirical invention were you just a bit funnier.
As it is, it is just sad to me that the opposition acts like an 8 year old that lost out on the third grade’s election of student council.
Maybe you don’t have much of a memory Robert Crawford but I do. Are you still looking for the nuclear bomb program Cheney assured us on August 26, 2002 Saddam had restarted? How about that candy and flowers? Remember the last throes of the insurgency back in June 2005?
Pablo I don’t recall the UN claiming the Iranians are sending EFP’s to Iraq. A claim that it took less than a week to refute, that even Pace wouldn’t back. I also don’t recall the UN saying they know for sure that Iran is trying to build a bomb. Might look like it if you buy everything the
Bush Administration says at face value like an 8 year old Robin. Hey didn’t you pitch for the Phillies? Or was it Cleveland?
But you’d think people once burnt would be a little more skeptical. Most Americans are because to put it in words some of you less credulous kids can understand war is important and stuff.
Ya… you and the Dhimmicrats are retarded that way. Probably because you all share the same brain cell (singular).
Really? Then answer a question for me, o euridite one… how did Cheney get Clinton to say the same things President Bush said in the run-up for the war, hmmm? Or how did Darth Cheney get Kerry to say the same things… or the UN… or France’s intelligence service… or any of the others that SAID THE EXACT FUCKING SAME THING FOR YEARS AND YEARS?
Did Cheney use the “evil Jedi mind-trick” on ALL of them? Even before he was Vice President?
You, sir, are a moron.
But hey… you’ll take a suicide bomber if all else fails, won’t you, you turd?
Turn the question on it’s head, my little liberal twatwaffle… would you give up rooting for your own countries defeat so that the Bush administration could prosucute this war not worrying what idiot pinheads like yourself think about it?
Would you?
I sincerely doubt it.
Now kindly go suck a nice shiney exhaust pipe.
*sigh* You know Dewclaw I’d explain it all for you but frankly you’re not worth the time. All the information is readily available. You can believe the overwhelming amount of evidence and testimony or you can believe the denials of the likes of Doug Feith.
Let me pose the question again to the rest of you as uncomfortable as it may be. Would you trade Dick Cheney for the destruction of Al Qaeda and the Taliban?
“Let me pose the question again to the rest of you as uncomfortable as it may be. Would you trade Dick Cheney for the destruction of Al Qaeda and the Taliban?”
So waging war against terrorist organizations makes people “uncomfortable”? That’s a mild understatment. Or it would be, if I thought for one moment that you could comprehend the concept.
That is a disgusting straw man arguement for two reasons.
First: it seeks to mask the repugnant implications of the malicious comments by Lefitsts, by intimating that somehow Leftists are participating in this war. The stated meaning of these comments, including yours, was that there was no reason to go to war, and that it’s Cheney’s fault. Supposedly his death will stop the violence! You never explain how. Now we are supposed to believe that you do share our goal, and that we need to assert that we should hand over someone like a sacrificial lamb in order to prove that WE are in earneset.
Second: You repeatedly dodged the references made by others noting that policy makers on BOTH sides of the aisle, as well as the UN and the EU, had suspicions about WMD programs. Your response? Changing the subject to Iran. The commitment of the previous Administration to regime change, Iraq’s failure to comply with the provisions of the ceasefire agreement ( which called for the verification of the destruction of all existing WMD munitions), and the proven attempts to purchase materials in Niger were cited by the 9-11 committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee.
But that isn’t convenient for you, and you’ve allowed your malice toward a person to be seen.
Pose all of the ludicrious questions you’d like. You’re not debating honestly, and you’ve shown no interest in anything other than wishing violence upon a person whom you don’t agree with.
If you see him, ask him if I was any good. I’d like to think I’m above average, at least.
And, not that anyone asked, but I condemn Emperor Misha. I also condemn any of you wafflers who haven’t troubled themselves to condemn Misha, or (even worse!) actually approve of Misha. Lastly, I condemn any of you who might not tend to give a crap about whether I’m correct, condemnationally-speaking.
“So waging war against terrorist organizations makes people “uncomfortableâ€Â?”
No, contemplating the Vice President of the United States getting shredded by a suicide bomber, with an eye dangling from a socket and his viscera splayed out across his midsection as he shrieks in agony in a pool of his own blood desperately trying to shove his intestines back into his torso before he expires might be uncomfortable. That kind of thing.
“by intimating that somehow Leftists are participating in this war.”
What’s your definition of a leftist? And what war are you speaking of? If you go by Army Times polls
apparently a majority of the US military, like a majority of the American people don’t think the war in Iraq was worth it anymore. Are they all leftists? Nah, I doubt it. But a lot more of them are now than they were 4 years ago. Just like Senator Jim Webb and General William Odom.
As for the war in Afghanistan I guarantee you if lefties were polled on the question we’d give Cheney up in a minute to wipe out the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Remember we’re the dirty hippies. You’re the guys who need radical religious fundamentalists like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell and their ilk to win elections. Those guys are a lot closer to Mullah Omar’s political and religious philopsophy than they are to Howard Dean’s.
There was no reason to go to war in Iraq. We know that now. No WMD or working ties to Al Qaeda. Invading Iraq made as much sense as invading and wrecking Formosa after Pearl Harbor to show the Japanese how tough we are.
In large part that is Cheney’s fault. Without him I doubt Bush could have pulled off the foolhardy invasion of Iraq.
“Supposedly his death will stop the violence!”
Never said that. Neither did Bill Maher. But without his obstinance it’d be a start, sort of a end of the beginning for you Churchill fans (I hear wingnuts are big Churchill fans) of the disastrous war in Iraq. BTW maybe you should’ve studied the 1922 Churchill instead of the 1940 version. It might have provided clues about what not to do in Iraq.
I’m not suggesting you should hand over someone like a sacrificial lamb. I’m positing a question. If you had the chance to play God, to put Cheney in the kill range of that Bagram bomber knowing the end result definately would be to give Bush the will, political cover and cojones to go after Al Qaeda and the Taliban and effectively destroy them this time around would you do it?
“You repeatedly dodged the references made by others noting that policy makers on BOTH sides of the aisle, as well as the UN and the EU, had suspicions about WMD programs.”
All those folks had suspicians. But none of them invaded Iraq did they? We now know that nobody knew if Saddam had WMD because Iraqis stopped talking in December 1998 when Saddam clamped down after Clinton bombed the last of his WMD programs into rubble. Cheney told us there was no doubt Saddam had reconstituted his nuclear bomb program. He and the Administration were completely sure and anybody who questioned their paltry and contrived evidence were loudly branded appeasers and/or traitors. We’re hearing the same kind of exaggerations about Iran from the same people now:
http://tinyurl.com/ywpu6a
“Although international concern is growing about Iran’s nuclear program and its regional ambitions, diplomats here say most U.S. intelligence shared with the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency has proved inaccurate and none has led to significant discoveries inside Iran.
The officials said the CIA and other Western spy services had provided sensitive information to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency at least since 2002, when Iran’s long-secret nuclear program was exposed. But none of the tips about supposed secret weapons sites provided clear evidence that the Islamic Republic was developing illicit weapons.
“Since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that’s come to us has proved to be wrong,” a senior diplomat at the IAEA said. Another official here described the agency’s intelligence stream as “very cold now” because “so little panned out.””
Does that sound familiar? Been there, not falling for it again.
Bill Clinton’s commitment to regime change was to sign a bill providing funding to expat groups who might put pressure on Saddam. He and the CIA rightly jettisoned Chalabi and his clowns as unreliable long before Cheney’s minions latched onto them and starting funneling their BS to the NYT and the other media outlets to buffalo the American people to support war on Iraq. Bill was never stupid enough to invade Iraq based on what he knew.
“Proven attempts to purchase materials in Niger were cited by the 9-11 committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee.”
It took the IAEA about a day to debunk the phony Niger documents from Italy. Why would Saddam send up red flags all over the world trying to buy yellowcake from Niger when he already had 500 tons at Al Tuwaitha? It doesn’t even make sense. You’re still pathetically holding on to falsehoods
peddled by charlatans like Micheal Leeden.
You will not because you CANNOT. Simple as that.
For all the “doctored intelligence” mewling that goes on from the left, not ONE has been able to answer that simple question. How did George W. Bush and Vice-Sith Cheney doctor the intelligence that had Clinton and Gore and Kerry saying the exact same thing years before they took office?
So go ahead and try to change the subject… post 10,000 word posts trying to act above it all.
You are intellectually dishonest and not worth any time or effort debating.
“How did George W. Bush and Vice-Sith Cheney doctor the intelligence that had Clinton and Gore and Kerry saying the exact same thing years before they took office?”
Let’s see some quotes. Actual quotes with links from reputable sources of Clinton, Gore, and Kerry all saying the exact same thing years before they (I assume you mean Bush/Cheney) took office. You’re not going to find them because they don’t exist. Except in your mind. Or maybe from Newsmax and World Net Daily.
But it is an interesting proposition. Somehow the whole world was just as absolutely, positively, no doubt it, slam dunk sure as Bush and Cheney were that Saddam enough nasty stuff to wipe humankind off the map? They all agreed he was getting ready to attack us or our allies and yet most of them saw no reason to invade and occupy Iraq?
It almost sounds like you believe the whole world conned the boy king and his mentor into invading Iraq, a nation with somewhere between 250,000 and a million metric tons of munitions, enough to fight an insurgency for decades. Just sent them off on a snipe hunt of monumental proportions.
Don’t you hate it when you step on your pecker online for the world to see, Markg8?!!!?
So now, Lefty Fanboi… answer the question. How did Bush and Cheney get Dhimmicruds to say THE EXACT SAME THINGS about WMD that the Bush administration said in the run up to the war? How could Bush/Cheney “twist” the intelligence when they were two years away from being sworn into office? Jedi Mind Tricks? Hypnosis? Chris Angel, Mindfreak? We really want to know… because none of you rabid, lefty moonbats has even come close to answering the question.
Do you have the intestinal fortitude to try to answer? Do you have a pair? Or you just going to slink back into whatever moldy hole you crawled out of with the rest of your ilk, knowing in your heart of hearts that you all got schooled by a “Rethug”?
Ahhh crap… I nuked the sites formatting. Sorry about that.
Little help, Dan?
Good work Dewclaw! I mean that. Have a cookie. I appreciate it when a wingnut actually tries to back up their argument with research.
Unfortunately you’re still way off base. Let me explain. Your quotes from Kerry in 10/02 and 01/03 show just how widespread Cheney’s fraud reached. When the CIA and our other intel agencies didn’t come up with evidence that could justify the Administration’s claims against Iraq the Office of Special Plans was set up in the Pentagon under Doug Feith. These neocon ideologues are not analysts yet they demanded the raw intel from the CIA and analyzed it themselves. They gave credence to claims about WMD from Chalabi’s expats and old stories of Al Qaeda/Saddam regime contacts that had long ago been checked out and debunked or amounted to nothing. The fact of the matter there was no new intel from inside Iraq after 1998 until fall 2002 because Saddam clamped down in the wake of Clinton’s 12/98 bombings. In the fall of 2002 our CIA station chief Tyler Drumheller says President Bush, Vice President Cheney, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and others were told by CIA Director George Tenet that Iraq’s foreign minister  who agreed to act as a spy for the United States  had reported that Iraq had no active weapons of mass destruction program. They weren’t listening to our own analysts so why pay attention to this guy when he was telling them they were about to make a big mistake?
They shoveled bad info into the NIE on Iraq and discounted most of the real analysts doubts about the evidence.
As Colonel Larry Wilkerson Colin Powell’s chief of staff would later say:
“In President Bush’s first term, some of the most important decisions about United States national security, including vital decisions about post-war Iraq, were made by a secretive, little-known cabal that was made up of a very small group of people led by Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. But the secret process was ultimately a failure. It produced a series of disastrous decisions,â€Â
There was a 6 page NIE summary that was widely disseminated to the media that contained almost none of the caveats real analysts inserted into the estimate. The bigger 92 page NIE contained some of those doubts but they were in tiny footnotes while the OSP’s BS was blared in big scary headlines. In reality the State Dept intel agency dissented in a major way, and the Dept of Energy, dissented on the role of aluminum tubes, The AF dissented on UAVs to be used for disseminating biological weapons. The Admninistration was telling us there were no doubts when as Hans Blix said he never saw a situation in which a government could have 100 percent certainty of weapons of mass destruction and zero percent knowledge of where they are.
We all know what happened to anybody who publically questioned the WH line. Just ask Joe Wilson. Hell Max Cleland voted for the AUMF but it didn’t stop Repubs from running commercials in GA
picturing him with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
Now let’s go back to February 1998 shall we? Saddam was messing with the inspectors. He wanted them out, wanted sanctions lifted.
Here is some more from the Clinton speech you quoted:
“It is against that background that we have repeatedly and unambiguously made clear our preference for a diplomatic solution.
The inspection system works. The inspection system has worked in the face of lies, stonewalling, obstacle after obstacle after obstacle. The people who have done that work deserve the thanks of civilized people throughout the world.
It has worked. That is all we want. And if we can find a diplomatic way to do what has to be done, to do what he promised to do at the end of the Gulf War, to do what should have been done within 15 days within 15 days of the agreement at the end of the Gulf War, if we can find a diplomatic way to do that, that is by far our preference…
If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors…
Following any strike, we will carefully monitor Iraq’s activities with all the means at our disposal. If he seeks to rebuild his weapons of mass destruction, we will be prepared to strike him again.”
He wasn’t saying the exact thing. He wasn’t calling for an invasion of Iraq. He was talking about whacking him with our AF. Which he did repeatedly. Air strikes in 12/98 we now know wiped out the last vestiges of Saddam’s WMD program.
Now go look at Hans Blix’s report back February 2003. It shows the Iraqis bending over backward to cooperate. But it shows no WMD.
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/blix14Febasdel.htm
I’ve gone over this stuff dozens of times in the last 4 years with smarter antogonists than you Dewclaw. You’re not going to win. Give it up.
Proof? Or did you read it on the intratubenets and are pulling those golden nuggets out your ass again?
From YOUR post-
WHAT PROGRAM IS THAT, I WUNDA? I thought Cheney and Rumsfield made it all up with that super-secret cabal.
Amazing they twisted the NIE so well that they had Clinton believing it two years before their administration came to power. Who-da thunk it!!
There are some serious “ambiguities” in your timeline, my little liberal cumquat.
In relationship to the intelligence, which you and your communist, traitor buddies insist Cheney/Bush/Rumsfield/Halliburton/Hitler/the Gieco Caveman twirled about their little fingers to get the “War For OIL” ™ (C) (LMNOP)… Clinton said the EXACT same thing. You can obfuscate all you want, but it doesn’t change the FACTS, pumpkin.
Bull and shit. Another made up “fact” pulled from your seriously overworked sphincter area.
Really?
Unaccounted for WMD materials and research and construction on missiles in violation of the range parameters set by the Security Council.
Is that “bending over backward” to you?
Here’s the kicker…
Which means that Iraq was not “bending over backward”… they were NOT COOPERATING.
Did you think I wouldn’t actually read your links, Brainiac?
Now… after all that diversion, you still haven’t answered my question.
Explain how the intelligence that YOU and your ilk say Bush “lied, twisted, manipulated, whatever the flavor is this month, (ad naseum)” to make the case for war… how did the intelligence say the EXACT same thing during 1998 before the Evil Empire was inaugurated?
Just answer my question…
By the way…
So did you REALLY believe they didn’t exist (and reinforce the fact that the left is comprised mostly of tools)… or are just another lying piece of Kos Kommando schmeg?
Hmmmmm….
“We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors…”
Arguing your case on what Clinton said 5 years before Bush invaded is akin to arguing for an invasion of Germany in 1946 because Hitler was a threat in 1941. Clinton took care of the threat in 12/98 by bombing the hell out of Saddam’s WMD sites again and making it very clear that despite the Republicans’ boneheaded impeachment and their wag the dog words of encouragement to Saddam that he’d do it again if need be.
As for Blix, lemme ask you Dewclip what do you think “unaccounted for” means? Does it mean it still exists? Could it mean that what Blix couldn’t find had been dumped “in the unilateral destruction in the chemical field, which took place in the summer of 1991â€Â? Hmmm?
The distance those Al Samoud 2 missiles could fly
was about 30km further than the proscribed distance. Saddam’s missile engineers said with the warhead weight they would only fly within the legal range. But they were in no position to argue.
But c’mon you can do better than that. Why not argue about the two test tubes found in the back of that Iraqi scientist’s fridge? Or the centrifuge drawings and the spare parts another Iraqi led our guys to under the rose bush in his garden? How about those 500 canisters of 1980’s era mustard gas? Maybe you have suspicions that all the WMD are squirreled away in the Bekaa Valley. LOL
Surely you can build a stronger case for getting us involved in this sucking chest wound of a war can’t you? Blaming Bill Clinton for Bush’s stupidity and Cheney’s perfidy is ridiculous. He had nothing to do with the lies being peddles by those in power in 2002-03. Regardless of what anybody else said in 1998, 2002 or 2003 Bush was the decider. He and his Administration, with Cheney as the most agressive advocate told us their evidence was ironclad when in fact we now know it was anything but. Anybody who dared differ with them was punished. Even going so far as outing a covert CIA agent who was working on WMD to get back at her husband who debunked their Niger yellowcake story.
And your response? Juvenile insults and trotting out the old “everybody thought so” argument that’s been inoperative for years. It’s that kind of BS that cost Republicans the House and the Senate last year. Keep it up. It’ll cost you the White House in 2008 too.
All I’m doing is beating you up with your own posts…. not that it’s much of a challenge, but hey, I like beating up on intellectually inferior lefties.
I’m funny that way.
Every time you make some assertion of “fact”, I rebut it… which (typical of you liberal douche nozzles) just lead you to make some other assertion of “fact”… not to address the FACT your original assertion was wrong (or a lie).
But your facts don mean what you think dey mean…
Well either Saddam had WMD and the means to reconstitute his WMD programs.. or he didn’t.
Bush “peddled his lies” about Iraq’s WMD.
So Clinton… who said the same thing Bush did about Iraq’s WMD, was lying… according to you.
As well as Kerry, Biden, Pelosi, The UN, French Intelligence, British Intelligence, et all.
Just a bunch of liars. Manipulated by the Liar-in-Chief…. before he was the Liar-in-Chief.
Do you have to work at being such a fucking tool, or did you get like a PHD in that field of study?
Well, hell… which is it? Was it Iraq? The culture of corruption? Mark Foley?
Shit, according to you peeps… the rising barometric pressure cost the Republican’s the election.
Make up your damned mind, jerkweed.
I guess you just don’t have the stones to answer the question (WHATTA SHOCKER!!!).
I’m going to pull a SteveXX and declare victory on this one.
It’s obvious you’re going to continue to insist that the sky is haze green in Markg8-world. Any further debate with such a close-minded, intellectually dishonest twerp is going to be a waste of time.
Please feel free to take me up on that shiny exhaust pipe suggestion at your leisure.
Tool.
Take your delusions of adequacy and Bush’s 30% approval rating and run away Dewclip. I don’t expect you’ll change. I certainly hope you don’t. I do expect you’ll keep marginalizing yourself though and that’s all anyone can really ask.
What is it with you left wing moonbats and polls?
98% of the people here think your an ass.
That and Bush’s 30% mean nothing… just like you, cupcake.
If you’re representative of the 98% Dewey that’s no surprise. What would be surprising is if this blog has 98 regulars.
Digby held a fundraiser awhile back and raised enough $$ in one day to live on for a year. It takes Goldstein a week (so far) to raise enough for a new laptop. You ought to kick in some so he can get his phone and net connection back up.
Bush poll numbers are in 1974 Nixon territory and Cheney is as popular as Mussolini was in Italy just before they shoved a meathook in his back and hung him upside down from a lamp post, and you think that means nothing. Good. Keep telling yourself that. National politics and military policy don’t seem to be your forte anyway. Maybe you should apply for the Secretary of the Army job. You have the only qualification they look for: blind loyalty.
Main Entry: ver·bose
Function: adjective
Pronunciation: (“)v&r-’bOs
Etymology: Latin verbosus, from verbum
1 : markg8
The simple fact is you do not believe we at war, and you share ideologies with the enemy. Therefore, you support the enemy, and not America. You will dispute this of course, try not to get too wordy.
We’re at war in at least two countries that I know of Robert and I wouldn’t be surprised to find out we’re stirring up trouble elsewhere. I’ve seen that bizarre “you don’t think we’re at war” statement for years now from wingnuts. Just how deluded are you?
I share ideologies with the enemy? Who is your enemy? Nancy Pelosi? Barrack Obama? Damn right.
If it’s Mullah Omar or Osama Bin Laden you’re talking about then I’m afraid you’re just deluding youself. I haven’t even to been to church since my mother died. I’d say anybody who supports George Bush’s military and economic strategies is supporting policies that weaken this country. Anyone who wouldn’t gladly trade Dick Cheney for succcess against Al Qaeda and the Taliban doesn’t support the troops, isn’t interested in victory in the GWOT, and is a partisan fool of the highest order. Hell I’d trade any one man, Obama, Al Gore, anybody if it meant destroying Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
And your expertese in military matters is… ???
You played an Army Ranger on the internet? You watch NCIS and JAG reruns every week?
I was IN the military, you pompous piece of dog schmeg. I seved during combat operations twice. I currently work for the DOE on DOD weapons systems. I hazard to guess I know more about military matters than you do… unless your secretly Rumsfeld’s evil, liberal clone.
Al Qaeda and the rest of the islamofascists… who strangly enough, spout the same talking points and strategy as Murtha, Kerry, Pelosi, Obama, you, and the rest of the cut and surrender crowd.
When your actions and words endanger the safety of this country, embolden our enemies and give them refuge and comfort… then you, and all like you are the enemy.
They, along with you, are traitors.
Accept the truth, pumpkin.
I expected that response, I am just surprised it was so concise. I do not mind you thinking I am delusional, nor do I mind if America implodes due to discussions truncated with all the weapons the left uses to end debate. I do mind you losing a war that is essential to our survival, it is not about countries, it is about those that will not stop until we are dead. You might try thinking about who they hate more, before you pull in our last best hope to win. Those willing to kill themselves are your supporters. That is fact. You choose whom to kill, I choose to kill them, not us.
One last point, we are not in a war of insults, or political discussion, we are in a war of survival. Believe it or not. If you choose not to fight a real war, do not expect to win one. The left clearly intend to lose this one, God bless those that fight so valiantly for MY country. My life is worth nothing without freedom for my sons and daughters. Of course, I will hear from the left that they are all about freedom, another leg cut, the collapse is not far behind.
If you really believe that crap then you should be writing your congressmen and senators every day demanding the impeachment, conviction and removal from office of Dick Cheney and George Bush.
They are winning the GWOT for Iran. The Chicago Tribune reported today Iran is offering to finance Sunni Iraqi political parties. Afghanistan is now the biggest narcostate in the world again. Heckuva job!
We’re going to leave Iraq because we have to. The US military isn’t built to occupy hostile foreign nations. Nothing we can do will change the above dynamic. Iraq’s second biggest industry is Iranian Shiite tourism to their religious sites.
Once we leave they’ll either continue fighting each other or they won’t. The middle eastern countries will continue to sell oil. We’ll continue to buy most of ours elsewhere. Life will go on. And that stuff in your bomb shelter will get stale. Your kids will throw it out after you die.
I believe in crap, I never thought of that before. When they are done killing each other, certainly they will quit, and not attack us again. I am delusional, and stupid, but I see the enemy. Attempt to hate those that attack, not those that protect you.
Btw, I own congress, but it is too expensive these days. You write them, they agree with you.
Хорошо пишешь аффтар